Complete understanding of the adhesive curing effect of a bonded piezoelectric lead zirconate titanate (PZT) sensor on the electromechanical admittance (EMA, inverse of impedance) facilitates the accurate diagnosis of structural damages when employing the impedance technique for structural health monitoring. This article analytically and experimentally investigated the curing effect of adhesive layer on the EMA-based concrete structural damage detection. Curing effect was theoretically incorporated into shearing mechanism of adhesive layer to formulate a new one-dimensional PZT-structural impedance model. Analytical analysis of the curing effect on the EMA signature as well as the EMA-based damage diagnosis was calculably interpreted through the model. Proof-of-concept experiment was performed on testing a four-point bending reinforced concrete (RC) beam bonded with multiple PZT patches under adhesive curing. Experimental results demonstrated that singular shift in the EMA spectra under adhesive curing could be turned into three typical shifts when structural damage occurred, which cogently validated the analytical results. Quantifiable signal index further provided useful information for the identification of crack occurrence, progression, and reinforcement yielding of the RC beam. Results of this study potentially promoted the real-life engineering applications of impedance technique inclusive of deficient adhesive condition.
ParkGSohnHFarrarCR, et al. Overview of piezoelectric impedance-based health monitoring and path forward. Shock Vib Dig2003; 35: 451–463.
2.
NaWSBaekJ.A review of the piezoelectric electromechanical impedance based structural health monitoring technique for engineering structures. Sensors2018; 18: 1307.
3.
DangNLHuynhTCPhamQQ, et al. Damage-sensitive impedance sensor placement on multistrand anchorage based on local stress variation analysis. Struct Control Health Monit2020; 27: 2547.
RajuJBhallaSVisalakshiT.Pipeline corrosion assessment using piezo-sensors in reusable non-bonded configuration. NDT & E Int2020;111: 102220.
6.
ChaliorisCEViolettaKKVoutetakiME, et al. Flexural damage diagnosis in reinforced concrete beams using a wireless admittance monitoring system—tests and finite element analysis. Sensors2021; 3: 679.
7.
MalinowskiPHWandowskiTSinghSK.Employing principal component analysis for assessment of damage in GFRP composites using electromechanical impedance. Compos Struct2021; 266: 1–10.
8.
SilvaSDYanoMOGonsalez-BuenoCG.Transfer component analysis for compensation of temperature effects on the impedance-based structural health monitoring. J Nondestr Eval2021; 40(3): 1–17.
9.
AiDLuoHZhuH.Numerical and experimental investigation of flexural performance on pre-stressed concrete structures using electromechanical admittance. Mech Syst Signal Process2019; 128: 244–265.
10.
GianesiniBMCortezNEAntunesRA, et al. Method for removing temperature effect in impedance-based structural health monitoring systems using polynomial regression. Struct Health Monit2021; 20(1): 202–218.
11.
CrawleyEFDe LuisJ.Use of piezoelectric actuators as elements of intelligent structures. AIAA J1987; 25: 1373–1385.
12.
SirohiJChopraI.Fundamental understanding of piezoelectric strain sensors. J Intel Mater Syst Struct2000; 11: 246–257.
13.
GiurgiutiuVSantoni-BottaiG.Extension of the shear-lag solution for structurally attached ultrasonic active sensors. AIAA J2009; 47: 1980–1983.
14.
XuYGLiuGR.A modified electro-mechanical impedance model of piezoelectric actuator-sensors for debonding detection of composite patches. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2002; 13: 389–396.
15.
OngCWYangYWongYT, et al. The effects of adhesive on the electro-mechanical response of a piezoceramic transducer coupled smart system. In: MohanSDattaguruBGopalakrishnanS (eds) Smart materials, structures, and system, pts 1 and 2, vol. 5062, Bangalore, India, 2003, pp. 241–247.
16.
de FariaAR. The impact of finite-stiffness bonding on the sensing effectiveness of piezoelectric patches. Smart Mater Struct2003; 12: N5–N8.
17.
BhallaSSohCK.Impedance based modelling for adhesively bonded piezo-transducers. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2004; 15: 955–972.
18.
BhallaSKumarPGuptaA, et al. Simplified impedance model for adhesively bonded piezo–impedance transducers. J Aerosp Eng2009; 22: 373–382.
19.
BhallaSMoharanaS.A refined shear lag model for adhesively bonded piezo-impedance transducers. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2013; 24: 33–48.
20.
MoharanaSBhallaS.A continuum based modelling approach for adhesively bonded piezo-transducers for EMI technique. Int J Solids Struct2014; 51: 1299–1310.
21.
MadhavAVGSohCK. An electromechanical impedance model of a piezoceramic transducer-structure in the presence of thick adhesive bonding. Smart Mater Struct2007; 16: 673–686.
22.
DugnaniR.Dynamic behaviour of structure-mounted disk-shape piezoelectric sensors including the adhesive layer. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2009; 20: 1553–1564.
23.
MoharanaSBhallaS.Influence of adhesive bond layer on power and energy transduction efficiency of piezo-impedance transducer. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2015; 26: 247–259.
24.
ParpeASaravananTJ.New refined analytical models for various bonding conditions of an adhesively bonded smart PZT transducer using the EMI technique. Smart Mater Struct2021; 30:125015.
25.
GiurgiutiuVZagraiABaoJJ.Piezoelectric wafer embedded active sensors for aging aircraft structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit2002; 1: 41–61.
26.
ParkGFarrarCRScaleaFL, et al. Performance assessment and validation of piezoelectric active-sensors in structural health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct2006; 15: 1673–1683.
27.
OverlyTGParkGFarinholtKM, et al. Piezoelectric active-sensor diagnostics and validation using instantaneous baseline data. IEEE Sens J2009; 9: 1414–1421.
JinCRWangXD.Analytical modelling of the electromechanical behaviour of surface-bonded piezoelectric actuators including the adhesive layer. Eng Fract Mech2011; 78: 2547–2562.
30.
TinocoHASerpaAL.Voltage relations for debonding detection of piezoelectric sensors with segmented electrode. Mech Syst Signal Process2012; 31: 258–267.
31.
MulliganKRQuaegebeurNOstiguyPC, et al. Comparison of metrics to monitor and compensate for piezoceramic debonding in structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit2012; 12: 153–168.
32.
TinocoHASerpaALRamosAM.Numerical study of the effects of bonding layer properties on electrical signatures of piezoelectric sensors. Mecanica Computacional2010; 29: 8391–8409.
33.
SaravananTJChauhanSS.Study on pre-damage diagnosis and analysis of adhesively bonded smart PZT sensors using EMI technique. Measurement2022; 188: 110411.
34.
AmartejaKArunNMuraliD, et al. A novel method for diagnosing defective PZT-Substrate bonding in electromechanical (EM) impedance technique. Mater Today: Proc2020; 28: 1005–1012.
35.
JiangXZhangXZhangY.Electrical admittance-based evaluation of piezoelectric active sensor condition using k-nearest neighbors and least-squares regression. AIP Adv2021; 11: 075318.
36.
KangMWangTPantS, et al. Fault detection and diagnosis for PZT sensors with electro-mechanical impedance technique by using one-dimensional convolutional autoencoder. In: Proc. SPIE 11593, health monitoring of structural and biological systems XV, 2021, p. 1159309.
37.
NguyenTTKimJTTaQB, et al. Deep learning-based functional assessment of piezoelectric-based smart interface under various degradations. Smart Struct Syst2021; 28(1): 69–87.
38.
YangYWLimYYSohCK.Practical issues related to the application of the electromechanical impedance technique in the structural health monitoring of civil structures: I. Experiment. Smart Mater Struct2008; 17: 035008.
39.
TaylorSGParkGFarinholtKM, et al. Diagnostics for piezoelectric transducers under cyclic loads deployed for structural health monitoring applications. Smart Mater Struct2012; 22: 025024.
40.
AiDLuoHZhuH.Diagnosis and validation of damaged piezoelectric sensor in electromechanical impedance technique. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2017; 28: 837–850.
41.
HuynhTCNguyenTDHoDD, et al. Sensor fault diagnosis for impedance monitoring using a piezoelectric-based smart interface technique. Sensors2020; 20: 510.
42.
IEEE. IEEE standard on piezoelectricity, Standard 176, IEEE/ANSI, 1987.
43.
LiangCSunFPRogersCA.Coupled electro-mechanical analysis of adaptive material systems-determination of the actuator power consumption and system energy transfer. J Intell Mater Syst Struct1994; 5: 12–20.
44.
AiDZhuHLuoH.Sensitivity of embedded active PZT sensor for concrete structural impact damage detection. Constr Build Mater2016; 111: 348–357.
45.
AnnamdasVGMSohCK. Three-dimensional electromechanical impedance model. I: Formulation of directional sum impedance. J Aerosp Eng2007; 20: 53–62.
46.
QingXL.ChanHLBeardSJ, et al. Effect of adhesive on the performance of piezoelectric elements used to monitor structural health. Int J Adhes Adhes2006; 26: 622–628.
47.
RaoSS.Mechanical vibrations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
SanbornJAMorelDE.Effects of thermal cycling on the mechanical and physical properties of a space qualified epoxy adhesive. J Reinf Plast Compos1988; 7: 155–164.
50.
MacGregorJGWightJK.Reinforced concrete mechanics and design. 4th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005.
51.
NarayananASubramaniamKVL. Sensing of damage and substrate stress in concrete using electro-mechanical impedance measurements of bonded PZT patches. Smart Mater Struct2016; 25: 095011.
